Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
T.Vaiphei, J.
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Sudip Ranjan Deb and Ors. -Resopndent
RFA No. 16(SH) of 2006
Decided On : 24-04-2007
WC Act - Claim petition under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 167 of the MV Act - [WC Act, 1923, Section 166, Section 167, MV Act, 1988] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 167 of the MV Act, which pertains to the option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases, and its interpretation in light of the claimant's petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act. The court also highlighted the legal position established by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan, (2006) 2 SCC 641, emphasizing the principle of election of remedies and the claimant's right to claim compensation under either of the Acts but not under both. The court further examined the applicability of Section 13 of the WC Act, which provides the machinery for indemnifying an employer, and its implications on the liability of the tortfeasor. The judgment delved into the claimant's right to exercise the option to abandon the claim petition under the WC Act and proceed with the claim petition under the MV Act, and the court's analysis of the finality of the order/award under the WC Act and the pending appeal under the MV Act.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for injuries sustained in a car accident. The court analyzed the legal provisions and the claimant's right to compensation under both Acts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant was not entitled to compensation under the MV Act, and the impugned judgment and award were set aside. The statutory deposit made by the appellant was ordered to be refunded.
Issues: The issues revolved around the claimant's right to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act, the interpretation of Section 167 of the MV Act, and the finality of the order/award under the WC Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 167 of the MV Act, the claimant's right to exercise the option to abandon the claim petition under the WC Act and proceed with the claim petition under the MV Act, and the applicability of Section 13 of the WC Act on the liability of the tortfeasor.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and award were set aside, and the claimant was not entitled to compensation under the MV Act. The statutory deposit made by the appellant was ordered to be refunded, and the parties were directed to bear their respective costs throughout.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 29.11.2003, when the respondent No. 1 was driving the Maruti Car No, ML-05-D-1228 from Shillong to Guwahati along with the owner of the said vehicle and her relatives as occupants, one TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No. AS-25-B-1146 coming from the opposite direction dashed against his car at a place called 17th Mile, Byrnihat. As a result of the accident, all the occupants of the car including himself sustained injuries. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition under the. Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ("WC Act" for short) being W.C. Case No. M. 18/WC/20/2003 before the learned Commissioner. East Khasi Hills, Shillong for payment of compensation from the owner of the Maruti car driven by him, i.e., the respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 4, which is the insurer of the Maruti Car. The learned Commissioner by his judgment and award dated 18.3.2004 assessed the compensation amount at Rs. 1,15,284, interest at Rs. 2,305 and the Medical expenditure incurred by him at Rs. 1,00,000, the total whereof comes to Rs. 2,17,589 and directed the New India Assurance Company Ltd., i.e., the respondent No. 4 herein to payment the same to the respondent. This judgment and award was promptly challenged by the respondent No. 4 in RFANo. 1(SH) of 2004 before this court.
3. In the meantime, the respondent No. 1 also filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 CM.V. Act') being MAC 17 of 2004 before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shillong claiming compensation for the injuries caused to him in the same accident from the owner of TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No. AS-25-B-1146, i.e., the respondent No. 2, which was insured with the appellant-insurance company. While this claim petition was pending before the Tribunal, this court dismissed RFA No. 1 (SH) of 2004 by the judgment and order dated 2.6.2004. While upholding the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner, WC Act, 1923, this court, nevertheless, observed therein that "since MAC Case No. 17 of 2004 is now pending before the Tribunal, the petitioner shall be entitled to compensation as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act against the tortfeasors, and, as such, the amount paid to the petitioner under the WC Act shall be adjusted against the amount to be awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal". This court further observed that the petitioner should not withdraw himself from prosecuting with the said MAC Case No. 17 of 2004 pending before the Tribunal and in case the petitioner without any reason withdrew himself from the said case, the Tribunal should allow the present appellant to prosecute the case by stepping into the place of the respondent-claimant in the case. The grievance of the appellant herein on this aspect of the matter will be examined shortly hereafter. Anyway, to complete the narrative of the case, the Tribunal thereafter proceeded with the trial of the MAC Case Nos. 65 to 68 of 2003 and disposed of all the cases by the impugned common judgment and award by awarding a sum of Rs. 4.33.248 with a simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition in favour of the respondent No. 1. The Tribunal also awarded compensation of varying amounts to the other claimants therein, with which we are not concerned in this appeal.
4. The Tribunal recorded the findings that the respondent No. 1 was the driver of the Maruti car and was earning Rs. 3,500 per month by way of salary; that he was declared to be disabled to the extent of 40% in the lower limb, which incapacitated him from driving a vehicle and, as such, should be duly compensated for the loss of income and future income ; that his loss of income while undergoing treatment was to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
